Talk:Enterprise architecture/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Moved here for discussion: Further Reading

Given the lack of references in the article, this Further Reading list is a distraction at best:

--Ronz (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

When under the heading of "Further Reading" why are these references considered a link farm? Enterprise architecture is a HUGE topic & these links appear to be a nice, moderate beginning for someone new to an immensely complex topic. I vote for putting this section back into the article. DEddy (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. Basically, WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:COI still apply. More importantly, the article needs references, and this linkfarm is distracting editors from providing them. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest discussion

Going on at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Enterprise_architecture --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is already some beneficial editing going on over at Zachman framework, since a number of participants do seem to have knowledge in this area. In a way, Enterprise architecture is the parent article for Zachman framework and it is highly desirable to make this article better. (This is our chance to give a nice overview of the concepts). If you do have general ideas for improving the whole area, you are welcome to contribute to the COIN discussion of these topics. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sparx Enterprise Architect redirect

Sparx Enterprise Architect is not a commercial link or reference. It is part of a standard Template:Redirect redirect to help those who went to Enterprise architect by mistake while looking for Sparx Enterprise Architect.

Note that Sparx Enterprise Architect is being considered for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sparx Enterprise Architect --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That AfD closed with Merge to Sparx Systems. There seems to be no case for making a hatnote on Enterprise architecture to specifically point to the Sparx tool 'Enterprise Architect.' Even the article on Sparx Systems doesn't yet have any reliable sources to document the notability of Enterprise Architect. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

cleanup of opening paragraphs

Not sure if it will be warmly welcomed or not, but I edited the first two paragraphs to put in, first, a definition of EA from an established and credible source: MIT Center for Information Systems Research. Peter Weill, the director of that center, and Jeanne Ross, his collegue, co-authors of the book "Enterprise Architecture as Strategy" defined the term Enterprise Architecture in their work, and I felt it was a cleaner, more complete, and more authoratative definition that the unattributed one being used in the pre-existing article here.

What I don't like about this article is legion. It doesn't flow. It is not readable. For people who don't already know the material, it is unclear what they are supposed to learn from it. I will be wandering by on occasion to try to rectify the readability, without, necessarily losing content. --Nickmalik (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

comparison of frameworks table

Where did this table come from? Who considers it authoratative, or even useful, or correct? I do not. --Nickmalik (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Concurred - it lists TOGAF as not supporting EA, for instance, which it clearly does (and indeed the wikipedia page on TOGAF opens with a description of it as "a framework for Enterprise Architecture"). I'd suggest this table is at best misleading and wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Misc initial comments

This article is erroneous and confuses IT with EA. The link to *the* software is vendor specific and does not fit what EA really is.

Unfortunately someone wrote a book called EA that was nothing but IT architecture. If your only tool is a hammer the world looks like a nail. And IT people do not see the bigger picture.

IT is but one small building block of a true EA and there are numerous books and papers on genuine EA that should be used for this wikipedia entry.

This article is so misleading that it should be deleted in its entirety as should the vendor specific software entry. (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  • This article should be improved, not deleted. The Methodology section now includes your point. I agree the Enterprise architecture has larger aims then IT or systems management. Perhaps we need to find a citation with a more exceptable definition that mentions the larger aims. --Charisma elg (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Intention to rewrite the opening paragraphs... again

After I had cleaned up the initial sections of this article to add citations and bring it up to Wikipedia standards, in April, the opening paragraphs were completely rewritten by Graham Berrisford in early July. In that rewrite, he added statements that were incorrect, and removed the only citable definition of Enterprise Architecture in the article. Rather than start an Edit war, I created alternative text that I intend to place into Wikipedia for the opening three paragraphs and sent it to him in e-mail.

If Mr. Berrisford responds privately, we will create a compromise opening. If not, I intend to upload a new opening section, based on a combination of the existing text and the definitions from literature. --Nickmalik (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

After a long series of e-mails with Mr. Berrisford, I believe that I've created a much cleaner article. There are a number of major changes, especially to both the opening paragraphs (as intended) and the rest of the article.

a) The methodology section offers numerous additional definitions for Enterprise Architecture, with no citations or references. Folks, please... if you want to add a definition, please cite it! b) The methodology section and subsequent text describes one common method of EA development (target architecture) two or three times, in different places. In addition, it describes a method for creating an architectural vision and working back. None of these methods are cited anywhere. I would suggest that these descriptions should exist in the Enterprise Architecture Framework article or in articles tied to specific frameworks. They add nothing here. c) The artifact section mentions artifacts and then immediately begins discussing whether different frameworks require them. A discussion of frameworks belongs in the article on Enterprise Architecture frameworks, not in this article. d) The ability to support better decision making is discussed many times in different places. Once is enough. e) I removed as much of the jargon as I could, referring to simpler terms, in shorter sentences, and tried to be more consistent in term use. This is difficult, given the fact that the term "Enterprise Architecture" itself has at least three common meanings! Regardless, I tried. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmalik (talkcontribs) 09:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I removed the templates for 'citations' and 'jargon.' If you disagree with this decision, feel free to add the appropriate templates back in.--Nickmalik (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I am sorry to say but I still think this article needs more attention. I have few ideas, and I hope we can work on that together sone. I will first read some more of the history and discussions here. I will get back on this. -- Mdd (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. For example. I do think the first sentence is right, but it is a good start of an overview section. In the first sentence you have to make a choice, which meaning (is the most import) is going to be explained in the article, and to which field this whole article is most related to. Only in an disambig page it is allowed not to make a choice. (The Dutch Wikipedia for example has choosen the discipline, the German Wikipedia article the framework... and this maybe strange, but it happens and is ok.)

Center for the Advancement of the Enterprise Architecture Profession

Hi, We have a new section to add and need some help. Below is a brief description about the new section we wish to add. Can you give us some guideance so this will take hold the first time around . . . please remember this is advocacy organization like AMA.

CAEAP is an advocacy organization for the professionalism of Enterprise Architecture. The goals of the organization are to a) ensure that consistent certification standards are maintained, b) that there is a recognizable common public perception of enterprise architecture, c) common ethical standards are applied to enterprise architects, d) universities and standards organizations have a common working point to extend the field, and e) there is a common path to becoming and maturing as an enterprise architect.

In this way CAEAP is a unique advocate for the profession of enterprise architecture. CAEAP provides the roadmap leading the Enterprise Architecture profession to presenting a common face to the public, maintaining strong ethics, delivering consistent certification, and guiding the maturity of enterprise architecture. CAEAP is a benefit to all enterprise architecture organizations, enterprise architects, and the public.

Please Advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marklane0913 (talkcontribs) 06:03, December 10, 2008 (UTC)

You would need to find reliable sources commenting on the importance of your organization. If your group has been covered in books, magazines or edited web sites, mention those here so that other editors can look them over. The mere existence of a professional group is not interesting; if others refer to it (in print) it may become worthy of note in our articles. EdJohnston (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I can not seem to find any mentioning on Internet of the "Center for the Advancement of the Enterprise Architecture Profession" except their own homepage and the two external links on Wikipedia. I have removed those links, untill some kind of notability is established. -- Mdd (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Links to CAEAP have been creeping into the page. Now, I have nothing against the organization. To whit, I am a member. However, CAEAP has not met the notability requirement of Wikipedia and the guide to Enterprise Architecture practice is a poor document at best, and does nothing to provide information that should have been included in the article but cannot (in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines). As a member, it is difficult for someone to accuse me of bias against the group as I proceed to remove the links to CAEAP from the site. (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
apologies... prior comment was from me (I was not signed in :-) Nickmalik (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation of enterprise architecture

The first comment is copied here from the User talk:Mdd to have an open debate

Hi Marcel,

The reason that the changes were made to the enterprise architecture pages to put the term "enterprise architecture" into lower case is that unless a noun in English is used as a proper noun or in the Title Case then that noun should be in the lower case. After debate with a number of other industry individuals on this we looked at the rules in English and also at other examples such as programme management and decided that we believed that enterprise architecture should not be capitalised unless it is used as a proper noun (e.g. The Example Company Enterprise Architecture) or in the title case. The abbreviation EA is still capitalised. Please can we look to re-introducing the changes that I made.

Many thanks. Colin Wheeler 22:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your respons, but I doubt your arguments count in Wikipedia. You are telling me your argument is based on "a debate with a number of other industry individuals". Probably in your industry it is all right to introduce such a standard, but I think not in Wikipedia:
  • Wikipedia is written for a whole differnt audience.
  • For most people "Enterprise Architecture" will be a new term, and I think it helps to see the term more explicitly.
  • In the notable texts we use, there is not one standard.
I think Wikipedia is not the medium to initiate such a one standard.
-- Mdd (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The standard is based on a language that is used all across the world. Many English experts will agree and have published rules that indicate that in English a noun is only capitalised if it is a proper noun, appears at the begining of a sentance (sort of obvious) or is in the title case. That is the basis on which I have made these changes. The term "enterprise architecture" is written in lower case in a number of industry standard document such as the TOGAF documents and thus I believe that with a standard set by both the rules of the English language and the industry at large that we here at Wikipedia should move in the same directions, especially due to the fact that this in an English article and we should follow the rules in the English language. I was in no way suggesting that myself and one or two other industry figures have come up with this by ourselves, the powers forbid.Colin Wheeler 23:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinwheeler (talkcontribs)
My point is that Wikipedia shouldn't start initiating a standard. I think Wikipedia should just follow the texts they represent. If the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB Circular No. A-130, November 30, 2000) states:
An Enterprise Architecture is the explicit description and documentation of the current and desired relationships among program/business and management processes and information technology.
We shouldn't change this into:
An enterprise architecture is the explicit description...
I think Wikipedia should use the same words the reliable sources use.
-- Mdd (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia would not be initiating a standard by following the rules of English that clearly states that the only nouns capitalised are proper nouns. This is pretty much universal and unless "enterprise architecture" is used as a proper noun, then is should be in lower case. If we are quoting from material that has made this mistake, then by all means, we should stick to the source, but where material is added here, then it should follow the rules of English. The question here is not should the term "enterprise architecture" be capitalised but rather two questions. Are we writing these articles according to the rules of the English language, and secondly is the generic term "enterprise architecture" a proper noun. If the answer to these two questions is respectively "yes" and "no", then my edits should stand and that is the standard that should be adhered to.
--Colin Wheeler 23:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinwheeler (talkcontribs)
I think the reason the term "Enterprise Architecture" is capitalised is, that it is a new term with a whole new meaning. I think the capitalisation of the term helps to express this. I don't think the US Office of Management and Budget has made a serious mistake...!? And all other people inclusive yourself on one of your webpages.
-- Mdd (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the reason that "enterprise architecture" is capitalised is because you think it should be and yes, other people including me have made mistakes in the past. The very reason that I looked into this as I am currently doing research on some papers that I am writing and found that it should not be capitalised according to the rules of the English language (I really can't express this strongly enough) as well as some useful sources such as TOGAF. There are no other reasons that it should be capitalised and I don't believe that the US Office of Management and Budget are an authority on either English or enterprise architecture. There are no rules or precidents in the English language for the arbitary capitalisation of words because they are new concepts. I already admitted to my mistake, although I don't think that is the point under debate, so would appreciate if you would cease to mention that single case. As this is one of my first contributions to Wikipedia I can only ask now how this conflict is resolved as I don't see that we are going to agree on this point. I believe that the term should be written according to the rules of English and you believe that the term should be written according to your sources and your own preference. Please advise. Thanks
--Colin Wheeler 00:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinwheeler (talkcontribs)
I don't think it should be so. These are not my preferences. The term "Enterprise Architecture" is capitalised in hundreds of sources I have recently studied in this field. These sources are added to the two dozend Wikipedia articles in this field, I have written recently. Thank you.
Naming your website was just an example from the real world. In an other real world example of profiles of Enterprise architects around the opengroup, I again found multiple examples of "Enterprise Architect" and "Enterprise Architecture" capitalized. Naming these kind of examples is just a way of keeping this argumentation going. No more no less.
-- Mdd (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S. There are places in Wikipedia you can ask for help. The way I would proceed is to discuss this futher with arguments, and to further investigate. For example calling the US Office of Management and Budget no authority is, I think, a big mistake. The Clinger-Cohen Act assigns the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) first responsibility for improving the acquisition, use, and disposal of information technology by the Federal Government. And that US Federal govenment has played and still plays a mayor role in the emerge of the field.
Marcel, you seem to refuse to even acknowledge that the rules of English demand that this term is written in lower case. If you are not willing to start from that point of view or provide any proof or precident in the English language about why enterprise architecture should be capitalised other than the US Office of Management and Budget (who themselves I am sure would not claim to be an experts on English or EA but rather experts on Management and Budget), then I see no point in continuing this debate with you. Please look at the article on Wikipedia about capitalisation and it will help you understand English, which is the debate here, not enterprise architecture. If that is not enough, please feel free to browse other sources on the Internet and if that is not enough, please feel free to contact me so that I can put you into contact with some English professors at Oxford University, who I am sure you will have to achnowledge are experts in the field of English, which is what we are talking about here. Your example from The Open Group London 2006 website shows people's profiles, written by those individuals and there are examples of all three ways, capitalised as a proper noun, captialised when not a proper noun and written in lower case. This actually further demonstrates to me that we need to settle on the correct English way of doing things so that we can get uniformity across the industry.
--Colin Wheeler 11:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinwheeler (talkcontribs)
This could be posed as a question over at WT:Manual of style. Generally, if one of the Wikipedia style rules governs, we don't care how the matter is dealt with outside. Personally, I could see a case for upper-case 'Architecture' if the phrase was obviously a term of art and could not be inferred from the separate meanings of the two words. For instance, we have Category:Arts and Crafts Movement because 'Arts and Crafts' is the name of a school of thought from the 19th century, and you would not write 'Arts and crafts movement.' Here, it is not so clear, so it would be helpful to hear from other editors at WT:MOS. Elsewhere in Category:Architectural styles the word 'architecture' is usually in lower case. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks you both. I would like to hear from other editors as well. I don't want to ignore the rules of English, but I am more interested in the exceptions to the rules. I checked some more sources and noticed that internet sources indeed use the three ways. In the text of books I noticed however "enterprise architecture" is mostly written in lower case. The exception here in books, seems to be in the titles of the book and it's chapters and paragraphs. In these titles "Enterprise Architecture" seem to be mostly capitalized. Is that an example we should follow.
I however definitely disagree, that Wikipedia is the place to settle on the correct English way of doing things so that we can get uniformity across the industry. Wikipedia is just an online encyclopedia. Should we just add a request at WT:MOS. I think eventually I can live with either way. -- Mdd (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Marcel and Ed, I believe that we have a good way forward over here. Can we accept that title (the case used in any article or book headings or titles) case is Enterprise Architecture and body (normal) case is enterprise architecture. My feeling would be that it is not a term of art as it does not really indicate a single school of thought at this stage and therefore would not fall into the proper noun category. Thanks
--Colin Wheeler (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is for me not just about the term "Enterprise Architecture". This is a field with several new terms, which often become abbreviated in texts. Should this rules also apply on for example:
I also realize that Colinwheeler's proposal seems agains the Wikipedia's article titles convention: The title of the article is "Enterprise architecture", which is normal in Wikipedia, and not "Enterprise Architecture", which is normal in the titles of reliable sources. I much say, I find this rather confusing. The main problem I experience here isn't even mentioned yet. I don't care much if "Enterprise Architecture" is written with capitals or not, I have strong doubts that about the use of the abbreviation AE instead. Now what to do about that?
-- Mdd (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, well from my point of view this can be separated into two different questions:
  1. When writing anything such as enterprise architecture, enterprise architecture planning, software lifecycle process or systems development life cycle, then unless it applies to a specific one of those items the term should be written in any body text as lower case. A good example of this is raised. Systems development life cycle is a term that is very often used in the context of the Rational Systems Development Life Cycle, in which case it is capitalised because it refers directly to the Rational one. This means that it has been used as a proper noun. This rule in English should allow us to determine when we are talking about specific enterprise architectures or generic enterprise architecture.
  2. When being written in the title case as either a part of a heading of an article, sometimes as bullet points in a presentation or as the title of a book, etc., then the rule becomes a little more confusing. Here capitalisation is generally more up to the author. The title can be capitalised although the rule states that we don’t capitalise conjunctions or articles, so for instance the words “and”, “or” or “the” don’t get capitalised. I think that the reason that we often find the first word capitalised, like in “Enterprise architecture” is that the author has decided not to capitalise the second word. I believe this is more a style choice although sticklers would still say that both words should be capitalised.
I guess the basics of the situation from what I can see in the English language is that when an improper noun is written in body text in English, it must be written in lower case, but then it is written in a title or heading, it should be written in title case.
Obviously it takes a long time to fix all these errors and the reality of the situation is that with the divergence of English quality and the lack or use of the rules means that we will never be able to get everybody to adhere to a standard, I guess that by making a decision to change what we can we are only putting a stake in the ground and saying, “Look, this is the way we decided was right.” Hopefully, just a few of the industry will follow. At least we will have set a precedent that is based solidly in the rules of English.
Colin Wheeler (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you convinced me. The only side note is that Wikipedia has own naming conventions about article titles, which if I am not mistaken, comply with your first rule.
I noticed I haven't been that consequent, regarding this matter recently. For example I created the Control Flow Diagram article, which should be renamed Control flow diagram. And the same with Enterprise Life Cycle, Enterprise Architecture Planning... and who knows. On the other hand I also created the software development methodology article, were I seem to have followed your first rule to the letter...!?
It could indeed taken some time to consequently follow these rules, and make adjustments to the existing articles. I can start using it, where ever I go. We could also coordinate an effort to check all Wikipedia articles in the field of enterprise architecture, see Category:Enterprise architecture. Some article renaming requires an administrators, and maybe Ed Johnston can give us a help here? -- Mdd (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Marcel, If you could let me know what I can do to contribute to the effort, I would be more than willing to jump in and help. --Colin Wheeler (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I started adjusting the capitalization here and there, and I restored the changes you made to this article. I would like to wait a while with a larger coordinated effort, to wait for any other respons.
You must do, what you think is right. If you find any articles, that should be renamed you could contribute to the following discussion. Renaming articles would be my first priority here. You could also take a look if you could comment here and there. -- Mdd (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Renaming articles in and around the field of enterprise architecture

Control Flow Diagram

Let me know how I can help. Once the consensus is clear, administrators will help to fix the title. What should be done about the relationship of Control Flow Diagram and Control flow graph. Do these articles need any harmonization? Or are these two notions of control flow quite different? If they are different, a sentence or two in each article to explain the other term might be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you offer and a good question. I am under the impression that those two are different diagrams. The "Control Flow Diagram" is a specfic historic diagram in the field of systems engineering, while the Control flow graph is a specific diagram in the field of computer science. I didn't give this a second thought. The terms Flow diagram and flow chart are also no equivalent. I agree there should be concensus, with every mayor change. Moving the Systems Development Life Cycle for example seems like a difficult question. I recently updated that article and would like this history to be kept, but the systems development life cycle article has also some history. -- Mdd (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have moved Control Flow Diagram to Control flow diagram, since Marcel was the article creator and it's hard to imagine anyone objecting. If you want to move other articles that have a history, consider leaving a notice on the Talk page of each article to see if anyone disagrees. For Systems Development Life Cycle, you could do a merge of any new or interesting stuff from the upper-cased article into the lower-cased article. When finished, the upper-cased name would become a redirect to the lower-cased article. Both histories would be kept. All good. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the move. I will correct the links to that article some more. I have added a first image to the Control flow graph article, which will make the difference between those two more clear, visually.

Systems Development Life Cycle

The current Systems development life cycle at the moment redirects to the Systems Development Life Cycle, so there is not much to merge, or am I mistaken? I practically rewrote the SDLC article two months ago, so I guess I could copy all content to the Systems development life cycle. There are however over 100 articles linked to the SDLC article. Should those be corrected as well? -- Mdd (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Systems development life cycle. That is a redirect at the moment but it has a history. Go back into the history and you can see what that article used to be. For example, just before the redirect it was this version. I suppose that is not terribly interesting. You can decide if there is any material worth rescuing there. If not, then we should just clobber the lower-case article by moving the upper-case article on top of it. Before doing that, some kind of Talk inquiry should be made. EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
On your question about redirects. If you do a move, there are bots that will eventually fix up redirects. It is good practice to fix up after your own move, if you have the patience. The bottom line is that double redirects don't work at all. So A->B->C won't actually show you C. However single redirects still work, so those are less urgent to fix. EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks. One way or an other, this is a lot of work, even for an experienced user... and not realy my priority at the moment. -- Mdd (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Business Process Mapping and Business Process Improvement

I noticed two similar articles:

Can't we just be bold, and move those two? -- Mdd (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not. The Business Process Mapping article could maybe be merged into the Business process modeling article. -- Mdd (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise Architecture Planning

Renaming the Enterprise Architecture Planning (EAP) is a tricky one. I guess this term has two meanings:

  • On the one side the 1990s framework proposed by Steven Spewak.
  • on the other hand the general proces of planning the development of enterprise architecture.

Now I realized the EAP article itself, whould also stipulate this difference. -- Mdd (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise Architecture framework

I think the Enterprise Architecture framework should be renamed to Enterprise architecture framework as well, but this is a change we should maybe propose on it's talk page first. -- Mdd (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Zachman framework

It seem to me this article should be renamed to "Zachman Framework", because this term relates to one particular framework. But I am not sure. -- Mdd (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Information Engineering

I wonder if this shoudl be "Information Engineering" of "information engineering". -- Mdd (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of abbreviations in this field

In the field of enterprise architecture there is sometimes an extensive use of abbreviations, for example in the Service-oriented architecture article, but this is really only one of the many examples. Now the questions, I already stipulated in the previous discussion, is if this is acceptable or not? -- Mdd (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed fact required tag

I removed the three fact required tags in the introduction. I think these tags should only be used on statements which are really questionable. Especially because the article allready uis tagged with a

  • articleissues
  • cleanup, and
  • refimprove

tag in one. I think this shouldn't be more exaggerated, esspecially because I am more convinced the introduction text is quite right.

So if somebody thinks these initial statements are really questionable, please explain first. -- Mdd (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I even think the articleissues tag is questionable. It could be that this article has multiple issues, but more important, I think, is that the term in practice has multiple meaning. I do think, like I argued before, that in this case, the article should have a more firm introduction. This article still needs a lot of work, just like several other Wikipedia articles in this field

Article Needs to be Refocused and Revised

Concur with the accessibility issues of the article as discussed throughout this page. There are an excessive number of definitions, often listed with lengthy direct quotations, amalgamated without any clear focus and with potential contradictions. Further, many sections appear to attempt to document unique aspects of EA, but ultimately end up redefining EA itself:

  • Section 0 lists six definitions with a historical reference to another source containing yet another definition.
  • Section 1 seems to merely provide additional definitions.
  • Section 2 contains another definition.
  • Section 3 appears to be in the wrong article (at least in terms of focus), defining the framework and secondarily the interrelation of EA.
  • Section 4 appears to be yet another definition
  • Section 5 presents the benefits of EA
  • Section 6 has a graphic depicting the interrelation of EA

Presumably, the EA-related terms really are linguistically derived and based on the definition of architecture. As such, EA is fundamentally the architecture of an enterprise. Given this understanding, the article's term "EA practitioners" is a misnomer, as an Architect would not be (at least commonly) referred to as an Architecture Practitioner. [This likely originated from an attempt to clarify EA (the architecture) from EA (the architect)]. Further, the true "practitioners" are (seemingly) the enterprise entities themselves, regardless of whether any of the individuals of the enterprise (at any level) are cognizant of the architecture itself. Therefore, Enterprise Architects are those who strive to understand and improve the architecture of the enterprise. The architecture itself is comprised of the organizational structures, business rules, infrastructure, etc.

Recommended Sections (in no particular order):

  • Preface (such as the paragraph above)
  • Elements of the Architecture (high level overview, linking to corresponding articles for details of each)
  • EA Improvement (from Enterprise-level reorganization to process improvements to tiny changes at the lowest level(s) of the enterprise by individuals at all levels of the enterprise)
  • Evolution of the Business Philosophy (and not evolution of EA itself as that is likely integral to evolution of enterprise itself)
    • The Profession (if justified, the job title "Enterprise Architect" with the understanding that due to the integral nature of EA, numerous job titles contribute to EA).

In summary, the article as written requires a complete rewrite to address accessibility issues and to improve coherence and focus. --Eibwen (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Eibwen, it is difficult to dispute that the article needs help. However, the reorganization of the content in the manner that you describe would invariably create another re-edit with content gradually moving back towards the ungainly approach that is there. This is because Enterprise Architecture is a term with no single consensus meaning in industry or academia. The plethora of definitions is widely acknowledged and discussed, as recently as the post just prior to yours on this talk page!
Perhaps you can suggest a reorganization that is a bit more subtle than the massive rewrite that you are suggesting?
Also, it would not be correct to assume that the EA terminology is linguistically related to the definition of architecture. That would be an incorrect derivation. EA grew out of a young body of work that existed in Software Architecture, not building architecture, and thus the deriviation of most of the EA terminology is most appropriately traced to the uses of those terms in the Information Technology industry. While it can be argued that John Zachman never intended Enterprise Architecture to be a part of Information Technology, he was a practicing member of an IT-focused team inside a technology company when he invented the first widely available framework, and the adoption of his work, and the work of many others that followed, has been widely influenced by the association (for better or worse) with Information Technology.
Therefore, assuming anything about "the architecture of the enterprise" is going to generate a great deal of debate in this venue, without producing much in the way of clarity in the article. That's my prediction, anyway. I'm eager not to start an edit war.
Nickmalik (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. The previous paragraph notwithstanding, Eibwen is correct in pointing out that the opening section of this article is wildly unclear. It appears that some editors have been adding content primarily to the opening section rather than simply placing appropriate content into the appropriate subsequent section.
While it is important to note, for example, that EA is about more than technology, would it be fair to assume that a reader, upon reading that an EA contains descriptions of business models, business processes, and organizational structures could draw that conclusion without needing to call it out?
In response to Eibwen's valid criticism, I am going to make an attempt to either moving some of the content from the opening section other, more appopriate sections, or deleting duplicate or unsubstantiated statements. I'll also try to bring the style and voice a little closer to the standard. Nickmalik (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The existence of the Enterprise Architecture as distinct from the description of it

After my most recent contribution to this article, a very valid request was placed on my personal talk page from a person who signed his name as "Ian" but did not indicate a login id or use a Wiki signature. In that request, he suggested that we should place, into this article, some mention of the concept that an enterprise has an architecture... that it exists... independently of the description of the architecture that is the product of the business function of Enterprise Architecture.

I am directing that discussion to this page because I feel that the community should contribute.

I have stated publically, in many forums, that the term Enterprise Architecture has at least three meanings (and perhaps more):

- the actual architecture of an enterprise

- the description of the architecture of an enterprise

- the business function responsible for producing the description and for deriving value from it

The interesting thing is that most people, when I use the term in conversation, will use context to settle on either the second definition (description) or third definition (business function). I cannot recall a conversation with anyone OTHER than another architect where the first meaning comes up.

From the source material that I have read, this pattern repeats. For example, in the book "Introduction to Enterprise Architecture" by Scott Bernard, he uses the third definition in his opening paragraphs:

"...EA is a strategy and business-driven activity that supports management planning and decision-making..."
"Enterprise Architecture -- The analysis and documentation of an enterprise in its current and future states from an integrated strategy, business, and technology perspective."

On the other hand, Spewak's book (cited in the article), uses the second definition of Enterprise Architecture... it is the description, not the activity:

"Architectures, in this context, are like blueprints, drawings, or models."

According to Spewak, the activity is called "Enterprise Architecture Planning" and is distinct from Enterprise Architecture.

Personally, I am comfortable with describing Enterprise Architecture (when used to refer to a thing) to mean the "description of the structure of the enterprise) and with the use of the term Enterprise Architecture (when used a group of people) as the team involved in the business activity.

I am not comfortable using the term Enterprise Architecture in the manner of the first definition: to refer to the non-described structure of the enterprise. Here is why: A business has a structure, but that does not mean that it has an architecture. All definitions, from all of the reference materials that I have, or have read, refer to the "intent" of enterprise architecture. The EA is a constructed thing, and information can be derived from it. Business decisions will always be influenced by the structure of the organization, but we want to intentionally drive business decisions to be influenced by the architecture.

In other words, the underlying context of the term, that I have witnessed, is that the Enterprise Architecture is a term that is NOT actually used to describe the pre-existing, undocumented structure of the business, but rather only ever to refer to the construct (or the activity of creating it, or the people involved in creating it).

What say you, other editors? Are we OK with constraining our use of the term so that we actually exclude one potential definition, solely on the basis of the notion that most of the resource material makes the same exclusion?Nickmalik (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)